July 9, 2010

SHENZHEN, CHINA -- Last year, Zhao Bowen was part of a team that cracked the genetic code of the cucumber. These days, he's probing the genetic basis for human IQ.

Zhao is 17.

Centuries after it led the world in technological prowess -- think gunpowder, irrigation and the printed word -- China has barged back into the ranks of the great powers in science. With the brashness of a teenager, in some cases literally, China's scientists and inventors are driving a resurgence in potentially world-changing research.

Unburdened by social and legal constraints common in the West, China's trailblazing scientists are also pushing the limits of ethics and principle as they create a new -- and to many, worrisome -- Wild West in the Far East.

A decade ago, no one considered China a scientific competitor. Its best and brightest agreed and fled China in a massive brain drain to university research labs at Harvard, Stanford and MIT.

But over the past five years, Western-educated scientists and gutsy entrepreneurs have conducted a rearguard action, battling China's hidebound bureaucracy to establish research institutes and companies. Those have lured home scores [i..e., at least 40] of Western-trained Chinese researchers dedicated to transforming the People's Republic of China into a scientific superpower.

"They have grown so fast and so suddenly that people are still skeptical," said Rasmus Nielsen, a geneticist at the University of California at Berkeley who collaborates with Chinese counterparts. "But we should get used to it. There is competition from China now, and it's really quite drastic how things have changed."

... China has jumped to second place -- up from 14th in 1995 -- behind the United States in the number of research articles published in scientific and technical journals worldwide.

Backed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Chinese medical researchers, partnering with a firm in the United States, beat out an Indian team last year to develop a new test for cervical cancer that costs less than $5. The goal is to test 10 million Chinese women within three years. ...

Meanwhile, Chinese military researchers appear to be on the cusp of a significant breakthrough: a land-based anti-ship ballistic missile that is causing concern within the U.S. Navy.

In 2007, Chinese geneticists discovered vast differences in the genetic makeup of Africans, Asians and Caucasians. They will soon report a breakthrough showing why some people -- such as Tibetans -- can live effortlessly at high altitudes while others can't.

There are challenges. China is still considered weak at innovation, and Chinese bureaucrats routinely mandate discoveries -- fantasy-world marching orders that Western scientists view as absurd.

In 2008, the Ministry of Science and Technology gave researchers two years to come up with 30 medicines ready for clinical trials and only five days to apply for grants to fund the work. That's despite the fact that since the communist revolution in 1949, China has developed only one internationally recognized drug -- Artemisinin -- to fight malaria.

Chinese science and technology is also awash in scams and sometimes-troubling practices. More than 200 institutions in China practice controversial stem cell therapies for people suffering from injuries, diseases or birth defects. Although the government moved last year to regulate the industry, none of the techniques has been subjected to rigorous clinical trials.

China is also the leading source of what are known as "junk" patents -- ridiculous claims of "inventions" that are little more than snake-oil scams.

"This discovery is going to shake the world!" bellowed Liu Jian, chief executive of Hualong Fertilizer Technique Co. Liu says he has developed a method to reduce fertilizer use by half through the use of nanotechnology, although officials at the Agriculture Ministry mock the claim. "Will you help us raise some capital?" Liu asked in an interview.

Finally, plagiarism and doctored results seem to be as common as chopsticks. A study by Wuhan University uncovered an entire industry of bogus report and thesis writers who raked in $145 million last year, a fivefold increase since 2007.

The emergence of China as a nascent scientific superpower raises questions about the U.S. relationship with Beijing. Ever since the United States opened the door to Chinese students in the 1970s, hundreds of thousands have flocked to America. Most have studied science or engineering and have been welcomed in research institutions across the land. But with China becoming a competitor, U.S. experts have begun to question that practice.

FBI officials allege that there is a large-scale operation in the United States to pilfer American industrial, scientific, technological and military secrets. In the past few years, dozens of Chinese have been convicted of stealing American technology and shipping it to China.

"The science and technology relationship with China has always stood up against all kinds of political pressures," said Richard P. Suttmeier, who has researched China's rise for the National Science Foundation. "Now that you have competition going on, finding the basis for cooperation in the absence of trust is an issue. It goes to questions of espionage and a hunger for technology."

That hunger is evident in the halls of BGI, home to Zhao Bowen and more than 1,500 other Chinese scientists and technicians. Located in an industrial zone in the southern Chinese megalopolis of Shenzhen, BGI has grown into one of the world's leading genomics institutes devoted to deciphering the genetic blueprint of organisms.

Over the past few years, scientists at BGI sequenced the genes of a chicken, a silkworm, a panda, a strain of rice and 4,000-year-old human remains from Greenland.

In January, BGI made the biggest purchase of genome sequencing equipment ever, buying 128 ultra-high-tech machines from California-based Illumina. With that one acquisition, BGI could very well surpass the entire gene-sequencing output of the United States.

Inside the 11-story facility, the vibe is pure Silicon Valley start-up: shorts, flip-flops, ankle bracelets, designer eyewear and a random tattoo. Zhao came to BGI on a summer internship last year to work on cucumbers. Now a full-time employee while continuing his studies, Zhao is turning his attention to a topic Western researchers have shied away from because of ethical worries: Zhao plans to study the genes of 1,000 of his best-performing classmates at a top high school in Beijing and compare them, he said, "with 1,000 normal kids."

"Centuries after it led the world in technological prowess -- think gunpowder, irrigation and the printed word..": gunpowder and printing I'll give them. Irrigation? Before the hydraulic civilisations of the Middle East? Phooey.

Of course China is going to dominate. Any nonsense about Chinese lack of creativity will soon be dispelled. Even if true to a minor extent, the sheer degree of talent in China will prove overwhelming.

The best hope for the USA is to kick out the illegals and pay the underclass not to have children. Then we can enjoy our wide open spaces and enjoy a beautiful existence. Today, my wife and I headed to a pristine Florida beach; not a person in sight. It was all ours. I bet not more than 10 of China's 1.5 billion people enjoyed such a morning. What these articles on the future leave out, is that there is an alternative future to economic competition; we can win at the game of life. Iphones, technology and all the other gadgets of life are rate limiting in their ability to improve our lives. Life begins and ends with relationships and the occasional adventure. White people will always have something to sell the Asians because the Asians, while vastly more intelligent, are typically not very cool. That is why Porsche holds a cache that could never be equaled by a Japanese company. I have said it before, and I will say it again, if you want to know the future then understand F1 from 1985-2005. It's all right there.

Ethnic homogenaity amongst Chinese is going to be > diversity with NAMs.

Just imagine if America had 300 million whites and no NAMs, and an elite that actually liked and promoted its own populace, and allowed/encouraged the cream rising to the top: We'd probably have nanotech by now and would be mining the resources of the other planets.

Finally, plagiarism and doctored results seem to be as common as chopsticks.

Sounds about right. Once the serious money starts flowing in, expect to hear about some sensational murders, rampages, etc., carried out by angry victims of intellectual property theft at research facilities in China from time to time.

There is some good news here. Once the Chinese discover anything useful to help insure you have smart children the game is up. Religious and politically correct types will make it illegal here, but rich folks will just travel to china and have it done.

But China will never challenge the US since US has the Jews. Chinese or Asian intelligence is gopheristic whereas the Jewish intelligence is gibbonistic. Gibbons will beat the gophers.

What does a gopher do? It digs and digs and digs. And indeed it can dig an impressive hole, but it suffers from tunnel vision. It only has one goal in mind and keeps at it. It might finally find gold or whatever, but it moves only one way. That is East Asian intelligence.

Jewish intelligence is more gibbon-like. What does a gibbon do? It swings from tree to tree and does great acrobatics that defy gravity. It finds connections and relations between tree branches and navigates its way through perilous zones high up in the air with ease.

Compare Chinese circus with Jewish comedy. Chinese circus is impressive with Chinese pulling off some impressive, indeed impossible feats. But, there is a kind of one-dimensionality to it. You know Chinese got good at it cuz they practiced over and over and over. What Chinese prize most is diligence than brilliance. So, we are amazed by the diligence and effort, not by wit or originality. Now, look at the best of the Marx Brothers. They were able to put together the funniest ideas with wit, ingenuity, and brilliance. They were gibbonish, flying through the trees.

Chinese can do difficult things, and we admire them precisely because what they do looks difficult. Jews do even more difficult things but the amazing thing is they make it seem so effortless, off-the-cuff.

Of course, there are many single-minded and monomaniacal Jews, especially in the social sciences. But, consider guys like Bob Dylan who brilliantly mixed and matched various musical traditions to come up something better, richer, and original. There are lots of talented Asians in classical music. They practice a lot and can play very well. But we are far less likely to find an Asian Bob Dylan who can create something new, different, and original. Lang Lang may be very good but he's only doing BETTER what others have done before him. He is a follower, not a trail blazer. But guys like Dylan were not merely doing something better but doing something DIFFERENT. That makes all the difference.

Some people have argued that Jews are not all that original, that Jewish 'inventions' have been built or based on works of others, many of them goyim. But, this is missing the point. EVERYONE build on the work of other peoples. NO ONE is wholly original on his own. No Bach, no Mozart, and no Haydn, then there would have been no Beethoven. Giants stand on the shoulders of other giants. So, Jews are no different than others in this. The difference is Jews don't only climb over the shoulders of other giants but do the gibbonish swinging about from shoulder to shoulder.

They seen and find many more connections between things than others do. Indeed the very essence of humor is finding odd connections that most people don't see. Jews have the sixth sense. They are the funniest people on Earth, and it's no accident. Italian or black humor rely more on exaggeration than wit, a rarer thing and owned mostly by the Jews.

The great conflict of the twenty first century is going to be between China and the U.S. China is eventually going to want to assert itself as the dominant Pacific power, which will have profound consequences for the U.S., and especially our relationship with Japan, which is not going to sit idly by and watch Chinese power grow at their own expense. How we react to this as a nation is yet it be seen, but I have deep doubts about the multicultural, sappy modern U.S. in a conflict with the racially homogeneous, nationalistic Chinese.

one of my friends is a PHD in chemistry and i went with him to the American Chemical Society (ACS) national convention about 5 years ago. i noticed half of the presenters were chinese and i asked him about that. he said most of it was garbage research. only a few of the papers were noteworthy.

there's no doubt china has improved in science and is now producing small amounts of original research, but they are also the world leader in spam type research. publishing garbage papers in volume is their specialty. the signal to noise ratio is still very low when it comes to any science done entirely in china.

but I have deep doubts about the multicultural, sappy modern U.S. in a conflict with the racially homogeneous, nationalistic Chinese.

Right now the Chinese must be thinking of ways in which they can neutralize the USA's nuclear advantage, like holding some population important to the USA hostage. Once they figure out that one, the game is over. If I were the Prez I would say job 1 at the CIA would be to think up ALL the ways that could be accomplished.

"White people will always have something to sell the Asians because the Asians, while vastly more intelligent, are typically not very cool. That is why Porsche holds a cache that could never be equaled by a Japanese company."

Just wait till they're on top. France still sells fancy clothing based, ultimately, on the cachet they gained through their dominance of Europe in the Middle Ages, but that's a much smaller market than you think.

i am interested in china's big new missile specifically designed to hit US aircraft carriers. this is something you do not see often from the chinese defense industry.

other nations have better, cheaper, more effective ways to sink aircraft carriers with missiles, but at least now we can say china has come up with something nobody else has.

china is probably doing it that way, because they do not have the engineering to build specialized ship sinking missiles. so they're going to adapt big, ICBM size, country to country missiles, for hitting ships. it's what they have, so they're going to use it.

Just imagine if America had 300 million whites and no NAMs, and an elite that actually liked and promoted its own populace, and allowed/encouraged the cream rising to the top: We'd probably have nanotech by now and would be mining the resources of the other planets.

Yeah, it's really depressing to see what we were doing with both military aviation research and civilian/military space exploration in the 1950s and the 1960s.

Circa 1960, there was practically an entirely new model of aircraft [high altitude or low orbit] coming out of the Skunkworks or Edwards AFB every week.

Fast forward 50 years, and now we've got The Kenyan telling NASA that its Number One Priority is to remind the Muslim world that there were once Muslims who could do algebra [before Islam completely decimated the remnants of the Sassanid Empire].

Which comes on top of slashing the F-35 and cancelling the F-22 and and cancelling Constellation and Orion and Ares and pretty much every other thing that we could have been proud of...

What is to prevent China and Chinese companies from just making a concerted effort to buy up those rare creative genius in the West like any company does today?

White western men are the richest vein for the purportedly missing ingredient that China needs: High IQ and creative types. Every year the Western media, government, academia and business increasingly use everything from popular films, AA, hate speech, tax law, public spending, welfare, forced integration, etc. to vilify, deny opportunities and squeeze this particularly productive class to the point where they can no longer even afford to responsibly reproduce. The future only looks worse for the shrinking productive class. In addition, America is particularly anti-intellectual and brutalizes these sorts of individuals from birth onward.

China should buy up beautiful land in poor 2nd world nations like Costa Rica or Thailand under the understanding that they will be giving a relatively free hand to develop a powerful economic zones that will pump billions into the local economies.

In core form it would be a High-IQ topia Googleplex with all the elaborate benefits like massages and world class chefs but then so much more.

In addition, these centers could offer something no Googleplex in the West could offer: social capital/primacy, a ridiculously low cost of living, no underclass or crime, top notch schools and public services for children, high social trust/cohesiveness, minimal traffic, tax exempt status, etc.

Unlike MBAs, MDs or JDs, most techies don't care that much about being in a cultural center where Opera or 5star restaurants are readily available. Silicon Valley has so-so restaurants and the lowest cultural investment relative to incomes than anywhere in the US.

Most techies are frugal, practical and conventional wanting decent working conditions on interesting projects with bright colleagues and non-idiotic MBA type managers. They want to be able to afford to get married and have kids. Beautiful weather, good outdoors (mountain biking, jogging, etc) and good flight connections back home and the rest of the world are a plus.

Working 30yrs in such a utopia a very high-IQ STEM guy would be able to save at least 50% tax (income, property, sales, coming VAT, hidden) * $140k/yr = $2.1M (China could easily pay any US demanded taxes above the $80k limit earned abroad). If they had 2 kids, they would be able to save the increasingly required private school tuition of 12yrs*$10k=$120k and university of 4yrs*$50k=$200k or $320k per child, $640k total. That $2.74M based just on tax and tuition. Round that upto a cool $3M based upon vastly lower cost of living and any returns on accrued savings they could go anywhere and do anything by the time they are 50yrs with their kids debt free as well. Using public markets, stock options, spin-outs and IPOs could dramatically increase this figure as well.

For dateless dorks like Whiskey, these areas would be surrounded by warm feminine lovelies to take the edge off years of barren bitter beta existence.

Steve, don't take this the wrong way. You seem like a pretty smart guy. But after having read the comments people on here have posted over the past few months, I've come to a certain conclusion. Your average reader probably isn't particularly intelligent. I don't mean to say that they're dumb, by any stretch of the imagination. But I'd argue that they certainly aren't extremely bright either. Maybe somewhat above average is a good way to describe them. But given how low the bar is for the average person, even above average can be fairly mediocre.

I think this is part of the problem why race realism has a hard time gaining mainstream traction in American society. While some of its advocates like yourself are fairly intelligent and articulate, you seem to attract a certain crowd of less intelligent people, on average. In particular, the quality of the comments thus far for this post leaves a lot to be desired. :)

I'm guessing this is probably why the official Vdare blog doesn't allow any kind of commenting.

Meh. Russia has Jews. Israel has Jews. Even Poland, that dynamic pinnacle of civilization, had Joos. The US will be on top because it has WASPS. White Episcopalians are slightly brighter than American Ashkenazi. After all, Jews live lots of places that as shitholes.

Yan Shen - Maybe somewhat above average is a good way to describe them. But given how low the bar is for the average person, even above average can be fairly mediocre.

Wow, a semantic snowstorm.

Its true though, I read lots of comments on other sites from really bright people telling me how well open borders are working out, how important Mexicans are to the growth of the nanotech industry. You know, that kind of thing.

Us poor dumb white bastards here at isteve just can't quite figure out those clever folks.

Uh ditto. Steve, wth? Compare the quality of comments on your blog to those of blogs of a more "selective" audience--in particular those which consist often of comments by trained professionals in the field relevant to the blog (i.e. physics, math, finance, biology, etc.) Understandably, the broad nature of your posts does not lend itself to a narrow group of expertise; nevertheless, please consider the general quality of comments that your blog is generating and how that reflects on the rigor of some of your posts. In the last year, your blog has devolved into Whites=good, non-Whites=bad, underhanded, overrated, or just plain evil. Time for introspection, perhaps?

Uh ditto. Steve, wth? Compare the quality of comments on your blog to those of blogs of a more "selective" audience--in particular those which consist often of comments by trained professionals in the field relevant to the blog (i.e. physics, math, finance, biology, etc.) Understandably, the broad nature of your posts does not lend itself to a narrow group of expertise; nevertheless, please consider the general quality of comments that your blog is generating and how that reflects on the rigor of some of your posts. In the last year, your blog has devolved into Whites=good, non-Whites=bad, underhanded, overrated, or just plain evil. Time for introspection, perhaps?

"Your average reader probably isn't particularly intelligent. I don't mean to say that they're dumb, by any stretch of the imagination. But I'd argue that they certainly aren't extremely bright either. Maybe somewhat above average is a good way to describe them."

Of course, it takes one to know. This is why the Chinese will not rule the world. You guys are reasonably bright but not smart enough to take on the Jews. You guys also lack individuality, so you'll always have to look to the West for all the major innovations in science, technology, art, ideas, etc.

"Your average reader probably isn't particularly intelligent. I don't mean to say that they're dumb, by any stretch of the imagination. But I'd argue that they certainly aren't extremely bright either. Maybe somewhat above average is a good way to describe them."

No truer words have been spoken. Steve is to us what Mike Judge is to Beavis and Butthead. Very understanding.

Steve's really been firing on all cylinders the last few days, and doing what he does best - commenting on human biodiversity and its effect on the real world, particularly our children's futures. As the tenor of this and other articles show, the 'west' (non white majority by 2050), will really be screwed by the emergence of an ultra-high IQ population numbering in the tens of millions, unencumbered by PC, fiercely patriotic and ambitious and damned well organized to boot. Basically, the west hasn't got a cat in Hell's chance, but saying that I wish the numb-nuts politicians would actually extract their fingers from their collective rear orifices and actually WAKE UP to the magnitude of the challenge - even if it's entirely futile.

No.Printing did arise first in China, but it was of a 'fixed' whole woodblock type, printing a set text in one go. Guttenberg's genius was to invent moveable, metal type - as fitted to an alphabet (which China never had).

Yan Shan has a point.Anyone deranged enough to say (straight-facedly), that the USA will 'remain on top' because of 'Jewish comedy genius', which is 'gibbon-like', has to be treated with a certain caution.

So far 2 out of the 4 responses which have directly referenced my name have spelled it incorrectly, even though all the commenter had to do was to look at their computer screen when reproducing my name. Let's hope that the long term success ratio is higher than 50%. :)

I really think you should be a little more selective in your comment moderation Steve. Unless of course you want the rest of the world to read about the great theories your readers manage to come up with, like for instance the gibbon-like comedic genius of the Ashkenazi Jews compared to the gopher-like intelligence of the Han Chinese. Quite frankly I'm surprised that for someone so articulate and well thought-out in most of his posts, you would let your blog be encumbered by some of the garbage comments I see on here.

"Jewish intelligence is more gibbon-like. What does a gibbon do? It swings from tree to tree and does great acrobatics that defy gravity. It finds connections and relations between tree branches and navigates its way through perilous zones high up in the air with ease."

I have no idea if this contention is true, but, in literary terms, the simile is remarkable: vivid and, as far as I can tell from 3 minutes of searching, original. We've all seen gibbons at the zoo and marveled at what they do, but I've never seen any analogies derived from them before. The closest simile I can recall are the many references to the the three-dimensional chess that Spock plays on Star Trek as an analog for a complicated bit of thinking, but that's very dull compared to the imagery conjured up by "gibbon-like."

But surely given the low cognitive capability of the gibbon, their feats of acrobatic prowess are mostly instinctive, rather than the result of say a deliberate higher order process of ascertaining connections and relations between tree branches. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbon#Behavior

"The gibbons' ball-and-socket joints allow them unmatched speed and accuracy when swinging through trees. Nonetheless, their mode of transportation can lead to hazards when a branch breaks or a hand slips, and researchers estimate that the majority of gibbons suffer bone fractures one or more times during their lifetimes.[4]"

It seems as if the gibbon isn't nearly as effective and graceful as some might have imagined.

Talking about comedy, what about the British sense of humor? - surely that must surpass all jolly japery from any other nationality, Jews included. Yes, the uncanny British ability to make a joke out of anything - even when most inappropriate. The nation that gave us Monty Python, Benny Hill, Carry On, Blakey (from 'On The Buses', unknown to America but loved by Ausralia), Steptoe & Son (ditto), Les Dawson, Bernard Manning, The Two Ronnies, Morecambe & Wise, Leonard Rossiter etc etc etc.

There's actually a long tradition of Chinese linguistic wit, in the form of Xiang Sheng - which play extensively on the unique features of the Chinese language.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiangsheng

And I would dare say the performers of Xiang Sheng are every bit as good as jewish stand-up comedians. It's just that appreciating that art-form requires intensive knowledge of chinese culture and history.

Whether or not that comedic talent translates to actual innovation... time will tell.

Steve discusses subjects that are largely taboo in modern Western society. That's why so many comments are off the wall. The commenters are voicing ideas they would never voice in real life -- even to close friends.

These ideas would be a lot more nuanced in a normal society that encourages free debate. Unfortunately, that is not the current situation.

If China ever allies itself with Japan, then that's a complete game changer. It would all but ensure that the 21st century would be dominated by the Far East. A China-Japan-South Korea triple-alliance would be even more unstoppable (think of the added IQ power those nations would add). There are three obstacles to that: 1. The US would obviously object to Japan and SK leaving their sphere of influence, 2. China and Korea still haven't gotten over the injustices suffered at the hands of Japan, and 3. China foolishly insists on propping up North Korea.

No. Printing did arise first in China, but it was of a 'fixed' whole woodblock type, printing a set text in one go. Guttenberg's genius was to invent moveable, metal type - as fitted to an alphabet (which China never had).

Exactly. And to elaborate, early stage printing is less suited (has fewer gains compared to writing) for an alphabet than the logosyllabic system the Chinese use (there are lots more elements to arrange), which is why the Romans only used it to "print" on pipes". Not because they lacked the genius to think of something which is so obvious.

I have to say that I find the issue of Asian creativity one very difficult to get my head around.

I'm generally skeptical of claims that go, "This group of people came from this country, and this country has historically never contributed much to civilization, so this group is genetically not smart and/or not creative." I see too many apparent counterexamples: how creative and productive were the ancestors of the Germans or English before they encountered Western Civilization -- a civilization developed to that date entirely by other groups?

But what bothers me about many Asian groups is that even when they come the US, and succeed at extraordinary rates in getting into elite institutions such as the Ivies and MIT and Caltech, the ultimate creative product seems relatively so meager, compared both to the product of those of European extraction at those same institutions, and, of course, that of Jews. There are, for example, impressively few Asian-American Nobel Prize winners given their representation in the elite institutions. Now maybe they choose to go into other areas where they dominate in numbers at the very upper end of their profession -- but where is that area? It's not in management; it's not even in, say, contributions to IEEE publications that I've noticed; it's not at, say, becoming major figures in software (how many Asian names can you think of who have the prominence of, say, Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds, or Mark Andreeson, etc.?)

I just generally find this puzzling. I can at least point to some genuine creativity in Japan in the video gaming industry, and in consumer electronics -- but Japan does seem to be the most creative Asian culture, and also, I think, the most European.

But the rather surprisingly paltry creative output of Asians, given their obvious intelligence, in almost all situations, is hard to comprehend.

I think I agree with the two commenters who say the comments they see here in the comment section are often subpar. Why that is I don't know; maybe its because of the democratic principle that encourages people to be participatory even if they don't have anything new to add. Combine that with the American value of high energy (even if we're all fat and spent now)and you often get dumb, unneccesary comments. American football is probably overrated in this country but its still a pretty damn good piece of entertainment. Probably the most intelligent way to watch it would be to just mutely enjoy the spectacle. But instead if you go to a game almost everyone acts like they're half retarded and try to somehow participate in the game from the stands by hooting and hollering.

I agree it would probably be more politically beneficial to remove dull and stupid comments and present a more intellectual sheen to covert the skeptical. But I think the number one goal people should seek when examining political questions (or any other difficult intellectual subject) is self satisfaction and not necessarilly worldy power. For instance, it gives me a significant ego boost to think I know a truth (like HBD) that is of fundamental political importance that most of the smart set (people with degrees from prestigious schools who have been indoctrinated to think HBD a lie)do not. It would be great if national policy would become more in line with HBD but that is probably secondary in import to me than my personal ego boost.

So, in closing, HBD is by nature a populist political viewpoint (because of the extreme difficulty of maneuvering the subject in public political forums) and will never be slick. And, I think, HBDers should avoid censoring to look more slick and just enjoy the knowledge that we are right on this central question and the smart set is wrong (no matter how unsavory some fellow HBDers may appear).

"Yan Shan has a point.Anyone deranged enough to say (straight-facedly), that the USA will 'remain on top' because of 'Jewish comedy genius', which is 'gibbon-like', has to be treated with a certain caution."

It's humor like the crack above which will keep us on top. We can see through the cracks in the system, laugh at it, and reform it. Humor is necessary to satire, and satire is the best kind of social criticism.

Chinese are humorless. Chinese socieity is, in most important ways, far more politically and culturally correct than the US. They may not be CORRECT about the same things, but there are too many things which have to taken on faith in China.

And how can a people who believe a story in The Onion ever rule the world?

"But surely given the low cognitive capability of the gibbon, their feats of acrobatic prowess are mostly instinctive, rather than the result of say a deliberate higher order process of ascertaining connections and relations between tree branches. :)"

This is why you Chinese won't amount to much. I was using the gibbon's acrobatics as an analogy to Jewish brilliance, but your one-dimensional and literal-minded Chinese mind thinks I said "Jews are smart like gibbons."

I'll send informaiton directly to Steve Sailer's email address, but I can say that in the mid-80's the use of Western IQ testing was making major inroads in China. At Beijing Normal University massive resources were devoted to standardizing Raven's Progressive Matrices and several other major IQ tests. A leading academic who was also a member of CP-PRC described Arthur Jensen's STRAIGHT TALK ABOUT MENTAL ABILITIES (whichwas carefully but quickly translated into Chinese--this before copyright conventions were put in place governing PRC )asright on target for their purposes.While a major political upheaval took place at the end of the decade, it is likely the Chinese have had the good sense to take "g" very very seriously. It is a story not well appreciated yet in the US.

"Centuries after it led the world in technological prowess -- think gunpowder, irrigation and the printed word..": gunpowder and printing I'll give them. Irrigation? Before the hydraulic civilisations of the Middle East? Phooey.

Phooey indeed. The idea that the Chinese invented gunpowder is one the most widely held myths ever. Gunpowder was invented around 1420 in France. Similarly printing was invented in 1453 by Gutenberg.

The modern world began in 1453 with Castillion and Gutenberg. Both of these were signal Western acheivements. Gunpowder and printing are not Chinese.

The Chinese really are remarkable people with a long history of accomplishment. These myths do them no favor. They are from an era when the Chinese were under appreciated in the West. They are little better than the government's subsidized history for blacks. The blacks didn't have much in the way of civilizational accomplishments so the government "redistributed" historical events to give them some more. It's an insult to the Chinese to treat them this way.

The so called Chinese invention of gunpowder is believed by most of the general public especially those who haven't thought about it much. Specialists in the history of technology virtually never say this.

First of all what is meant by invention? Generally it means that some combination of elements are put together in a novel arrangement that makes some difference to people. The elements that the inventor uses are themselves often the product of some previous invention. So we generally call an invention as the last in a string of innovations.

So we credit Edison with inventing the light bulb but he certainly didn't invent electricity, or glass blowing, or any of the metals he used. After Edison put all these elements together the result had a major effect on life around him. We can look back and see a world before the light bulb and a world after the light bulb. There was a dark (or gas lit) world before Edison and a lit world afterwards.

Using a similar set of analytical criteria we can ask a number of questions such as, did gunpowder make a difference? Yes, indeed it did. Historians speak of the "Gunpowder Revolution". We can also see that after gunpowder was invented all fortification architecture changed. So if you look at a fort built before the gunpowder revolution it will have high curtain walls. After the revolution forts were built with low sloping walls. It's like looking at Renaissance paintings. Before Brunelleschi marketed perspective techniques paintings looked one way, afterwards they looked another. There is a clear demarcation line in history.

So the question - "When was gunpowder invented?" is a way of asking when was the historical demarcation line? Where did the Gunpowder revolution first start? The answer is in France and Germany in the fifteenth century. Part of the reason that this is misunderstood is because most people think that gunpowder is just a mixture of sulphur, carbon and salt peter. Not so.

The simple mixture of those three ingredients had been around for centuries on the battle field. There were cannon at Agincourt but they played no role in its outcome. When gunpowder went from being a rough mixture made up by gunners on the spot and became a manufactured product, it changed the world. And that happened in the West not China.

The French knocked down the walls of Castillion and ended the Hundred Years War, the Turks knocked down the walls of Constantinople and ended a millennium of Byzantine resistance, and finally Charles VIII of France in 1494 invaded Italy and knocked down every high castle he encountered.

That military revolution swept east not reaching China until much later. The English in McCartney's expedition in the late eighteenth century were amazed that this huge, rich and culturally advanced society defended itself with crossbows. They too thought that the Chinese invented gunpowder.

China and India are richer in nitrates than Europe. Very early Chinese alchemists discovered that there were some nitrate mixtures that burnt very fast. One of these was saltpeter and honey. This was a novelty in the East for centuries. It would be fair to say that the Chinese invented fireworks.

During the Gunpowder Revolution the king would typically create a royal monopoly on gunpowder production. These were some of the first real manufacturing plants on earth. In these factories they paid attention to corning and grain size and shape. The whole process was licensed and regulated. Sloppy craftsmanship was self correcting (Boom!). The impact of gunpowder on world history began when it was the first manufactured product as well as the first source of non-muscle or non-hydraulic power. That all came about in the West in the fifteenth century.

Oddly enough the even more bizarre claim that the Chinese invented printing was almost concurrent.

Printing isn't just stamping. Stamping was used in Mesopotamia at the very beginning of human civilization. Indeed its easier to stamp mud than it is to write on mud. Monarchs until quite recently had signet rings which they used for stamping their name in wax.

Printing also isn't just rubbing. If you have an image in stone you can transfer that pattern onto a piece of paper by rubbing. You can see the tourists and students today doing this on Mayan sites.

The Chinese did invent paper so they can probably be credited with rubbing. Paper is a mat of vegetable fibers. We think the unnamed Chinese genius who invented paper got the idea from Mongol felt. So I suppose that some idiot will now contend that the Mongols really invented paper not the Chinese.

What we mean by printing is movable type. Written languages are of basically three types: logomorphic (hieroglyphics), syllabaric (syllable based), or phonemic (phoneme based). These represent words, syllables, and phonemes respectively. The alphabet is phoneme based. Chinese writing is largely logomorphic.

If you try to print a logomorphic language you need a different symbol for each word - thousands and thousands. Sylabaric languages can get by with hundreds while you only need 26 letters and some punctuation for most Western languages.

There was a well documented explosion of printed materials in the later half of the fifteenth century. This was the printing revolution. Like gunpowder it too started in Europe not China.

The stuff they claim is shrouded in the same distant past as the white mummies that rumor & oral tradition have it started their civilization. Historical records are often written by royal courtiers prone to exaggeration for career advancement.

Just to respond to the point about the significance of humor in creativity.

Does anyone really think of the Germans as being great comic geniuses, or in any way having a notable capacity to produce humor?

I don't think so. Yet consider the body of their creative output - obviously in math and science, but also quite remarkably in music, and impressively in literature.

So of what significance is humor really as an indicator of creativity?

Is creativity even best understood as one factor that crosses disciplines, rather than a number of factors that may be manifested in a variety of disciplines, perhaps a distinct one for science and math, another for music, another for literature, and still another for humor?

You know, I seem to remember reading a lot of this gobsmacking wonderfulness stuff about Japan in the late 70's and 80's. Not so much anymore.

Everybody in Japan wants to consume electronics and pop culture and no one wants to breed or do the menial labor necessary in every society.

China is facing the same sort of upscale resistance. Chinese peasants are not as willing to do the guest worker routine: working like dogs in the coastal cities and then returning to live like kings in some dirt-poor village.

They want to live and work and raise families in the city. But they can't. They don't make near enough money.

That's why when I recently read a Kaufmann foundation report that studied the entrepreneurial tendencies of MIT graduates, where it found that having a Jewish father meant they were 50% more likely to found a company at all, it didn't surprise me at all. Elite Indian Brahmins, the group probably comes closest to approximating the Ashkenazi don't have that same idealism. In the scientific realm, for example, I notice that technically-capable Indians are less likely to engage in things like science outreach and free-lance op-ed punditry than Jews. (Cf. Gould, Lewontin, Feynman, Diamond, Krugman) Certainly the Chinese don't seem to possess that idealism either; from my personal observation, they're plenty smart but tend to drift towards the safer occupations of the biomedical profession. For this reason I think there'll never be say, a Chinese Richard Stallman or Grisha Perelman because taking those sort of risks isn't part of their nature. All in all it probably ends up a mixed bag; on one hand, the Chinese and other Asian groups don't seem to be cut out to be titans of industry or cultural arbiters (rather, not overwhelming so, you can always find exceptions), but on the other hand they don't end up toiling away as say, radical kibutzzers, social workers, or underpaid theatre mavens either. (Cf. Glenn Greenwald).

"But what bothers me about many Asian groups is that even when they come the US, and succeed at extraordinary rates in getting into elite institutions such as the Ivies and MIT and Caltech, the ultimate creative product seems relatively so meager, compared both to the product of those of European extraction at those same institutions, and, of course, that of Jews."

I've been skeptical for a while now that IQ is sole explanator of outsized Jewish scientific and cultural contributions, compared to other races. More than any others, I think Ashkenazi are most prone to be "slaves to ideas", in that they are intensely idealistic in pursuing the paths that formative life experiences lead them towards. Things like Bryan Caplan's writing an autobiography of his intellectual development in high school and newspaper stories about Elana Kagan's single-minded focus to someday be on the Supreme Court are great examples. Other episodes that come to mind include the current CEO of Activision leveraging his life savings at 22 to buy the company, Steven A. Cohen running the precursor to SAC out of his Penn dorm room, and of course Zuckerberg with Facebook.

Life begins and ends with relationships and the occasional adventure. White people will always have something to sell the Asians because the Asians, while vastly more intelligent, are typically not very cool.

LOL, "vastly"? So whites are super-duper-ultra-vastly smarter than blacks? Jews are super-duper-ultra-mega-terra-outofprefixes-vastly smarter than blacks? Jews are vastly more intelligent than Asians?

Yup because clearly there wasn't Jerry Yang, former CEO and co-founder of Yahoo. Or Jen-Hsun Huang, president, CEO, and co-founder of Nvidia.Or Steven Chen, one of the 3 co-founders of YouTube.Or Qian Xuesen, one of the co-founders of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at Caltech.

"For example, Graph 5a is "Immigrant Groups Founding Engineering and Technology Companies in California." India is out in front at 20%, followed by Taiwan (13%), and China (10%). This time, Mexico makes the chart, but with only 1%. That's not a lot of return for having 10,000,000 Mexicans in California.

Similarly, Chart 10 shows patent applications by non-citizen immigrants over the last 20 years. Mexicans, who are by far the largest number of non-citizens in America, don't even make the top 20: Chinese & Taiwanese are first, followed by India, Canada, UK, Germany, France and Russia. Heck, Turkey makes the top 20, and there are hardly any Turks in America"

Yan Shan has a point.Anyone deranged enough to say (straight-facedly), that the USA will 'remain on top' because of 'Jewish comedy genius', which is 'gibbon-like', has to be treated with a certain caution.

Nah, ASDF is right. Just as Israel dominates finance and entertainment in the east, America will dominate in the west.

So far 2 out of the 4 responses which have directly referenced my name have spelled it incorrectly, even though all the commenter had to do was to look at their computer screen when reproducing my name. Let's hope that the long term success ratio is higher than 50%. :)

Talking about comedy, what about the British sense of humor? - surely that must surpass all jolly japery from any other nationality, Jews included.Yes, the uncanny British ability to make a joke out of anything - even when most inappropriate.The nation that gave us Monty Python, Benny Hill, Carry On, Blakey (from 'On The Buses', unknown to America but loved by Ausralia), Steptoe & Son (ditto), Les Dawson, Bernard Manning, The Two Ronnies, Morecambe & Wise, Leonard Rossiter etc etc etc.

But even they admitted it was all down to the Jews (someone posted a transcript of it here recently, in fact). The comedic and entertainment monolith that is Israel (dwarfs the entertainment industry of Britain) seals the deal.

There's actually a long tradition of Chinese linguistic wit, in the form of Xiang Sheng - which play extensively on the unique features of the Chinese language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiangsheng

I first heard xiangsheng in a cab on the radio in Beijing. I was fascinated, because the rapid-fire style had something in common with early rap music. Really amazing stuff, and performed at a fast pace with some improvisation.

These talented folks are a nice respite from the dime-a-dozen shudaizi like Yan Shen, who clog American educational institutions with their prideful mediocrity.

Some people claim that the Germans are a 'humorless' nation.This is not so.Germans lead the world in 'toilet' humor, and also lewd, crude 'Benny Hill' style 'sex comedy' films were very big in Germany in the 1970s.

"Some people claim that the Germans are a 'humorless' nation.This is not so.Germans lead the world in 'toilet' humor, and also lewd, crude 'Benny Hill' style 'sex comedy' films were very big in Germany in the 1970s."

"Certainly the Chinese don't seem to possess that idealism either; from my personal observation, they're plenty smart but tend to drift towards the safer occupations of the biomedical profession. For this reason I think there'll never be say, a Chinese Richard Stallman or Grisha Perelman because taking those sort of risks isn't part of their nature."

Most Chinese students don't drift anywhere, they are told what to study by their parents, and they comply. That's likely to change as the society loosens up a bit.

The Chinese are very aware of the IQ differences, according to my conversations with them, Jews in particular.

"I'll send informaiton directly toSteve Sailer's email address, but I can say that in the mid-80's the use of Western IQ testing was making major inroads in China. At Beijing Normal University massive resources were devoted to standardizing Raven's Progressive Matrices and several other major IQ tests. A leading academic who was also a member of CP-PRC described Arthur Jensen's STRAIGHT TALK ABOUT MENTAL ABILITIES (whichwas carefully but quickly translated into Chinese--this before copyright conventions were put in place governing PRC )asright on target for their purposes."

"I've been skeptical for a while now that IQ is sole explanator of outsized Jewish scientific and cultural contributions, compared to other races."

Well, I have to disagree with this -- in fact, I think that IQ actually would seem to overpredict success for Jews, especially where IQ (or something very much akin) would seem to play the most dominant (or at least most obvious) role.

The argument is here is based on the observation that the tail of the IQ distribution for Jews, if it does indeed follow a normal curve, would suggest that the proportion of Nobel prizes in the sciences should be much higher than it is if it tracked IQs.

Jews represent roughly 22% of the Ivies (and, I think, comparable schools) on the undergraduate level. They win roughly 25% of the American Nobel prizes in science.

Now, the average IQ of the Ivies can probably be estimated at 135-140. But I think it's obvious enough to anyone who has any acquaintance both with the level of ability of the average undergraduate in the sciences at the Ivies, and the level of ability of the typical Nobel prize winner in science that the Nobel prize winners are in an entirely other league. (Just as an example, an appreciable proportion of Physics Nobel winners have done exceedingly well in the Putnam competitions -- and it's obvious enough that most science undergraduates at the Ivies can't hope to do so well. Moreover, Nobel Prize winners in science quite typically are noted as being among the the very top in ability of their undergraduate cohort in the elite colleges.)

But the normal curve would predict that there would be, proportionally, many, many more Jews at those upper levels of ability than at the relatively low level of ability of the average undergraduate in the sciences at the Ivies. Yet the numbers almost exactly match, each being more or less in the mid twenties in percentage.

So either the distribution of IQs (or relevant underlying ability) for Jews really doesn't follow a normal curve in the right tail -- that tail being much too much attenuated -- or IQ actually overpredicts their success in the sciences.

Even being chinese myself, there is quite a bit of truth to the common perception of ethnic chinese students being rather... limited in certain respects, myself included at times.

I have no idea how much of it is genetic, and how much of it is cultural, but there IS a cultural factor at work.

For example, singaporean chinese, whose forebears are from southern/coastal China, are quite often more creative and spontaneous than their PRC counterparts, even though they've essentially the same ethnicity. At least at the student level.

There's a stronger tendency towards verbal skills, networking, and 'soft' skills (i.e. verbal IQ) deemed important nowadays, and part of it can be attributed to the local education system and also the more western-leaning culture dominant here. To me, it seems to be the current difference between us and the PRC. I think that cultural edge will evaporate in 20 years.

Also, Singaporean chinese students, when in the West, still suffer in comparison to the whites in terms of verbal expressiveness and risk-taking. I once heard an anecdote from my dean Kishore Mahbubani about the dean of some ivy league college bemoaning two problems with Singaporean students - there's not enough of them, and they're too quiet!

So how far CAN we raise verbal IQs? And what is the future of the Sinosphere on the global stage IF its verbal IQ is forever going to lag behind certain prominent minorities?

The Chinese domination of the world is guaranteed unless they are stupid enough to allow foreigners to immigrate in large numbers. And once the nation develops, this one child policy must be dropped and a higher fertility rate encouraged. And that is why I believe the U.S.A must collapse, and collapse fast. The more longer this is delayed, more likely are the Chinese is adopting its foolish policies. I think the only nation in the future which will be able to counter the Chinese is global power will be the Russians as the E.U. looks likely to collapse too.

There are lots of talented Asians in classical music. They practice a lot and can play very well. But we are far less likely to find an Asian Bob Dylan who can create something new, different, and original.

Lang Lang may be very good but he's only doing BETTER what others have done before him. He is a follower, not a trail blazer. But guys like Dylan were not merely doing something better but doing something DIFFERENT. That makes all the difference.

Some people have argued that Jews are not all that original, that Jewish 'inventions' have been built or based on works of others, many of them goyim. But, this is missing the point. EVERYONE build on the work of other peoples. NO ONE is wholly original on his own.

If Jews were really as blindingly intelligent as you think they are, you'd have noticed that your last paragraph completely contradicts your first two.

NO ONE is wholly original on his own - but Bob Dylan can create something new, different, and original. Unlike that silly old goy Bach, I guess.

Let me first profess that I am of Chinese desent, so you can evalulate my comments accordingly.

This thread seems to have touched a nerve among the stephoshere. The implications of this article is staggering. The Chinese not only is aware of IQ, they are actively working to solve the puzzle where the West close her eyes. The end result being that they may rise to fullfil the prophecy from Richard Lynn in a few decades.

The response is the usual objections trouted out whenever White supperiority is threaten by the rise of Asia. If there is more space, It could be shown that all these arguements are either completely false or irrelevant. I understand that this is a normal human response. Let me say that this is the wrong way to look at this problem. First I will respond to just one that I have heard so far and comment on it.

1. The Chinese don't have the same kind of inventive/inquisitiveness of the whites/Jews. Judging from the dismal achievements of the East Asians compared to the western civilizations in the recent history, I can see how one might come to this conclusion. However, I will offer a few counter point to this arguement. I have solid reason to believe that this is not as big a problem as shown here, however, for bravity, I will argue as though the point is valid. Even if the Asians have the wrong sort of IQ, if oneday there are 1.5 billion Chinese in China with the average IQ of 130, the implications are still staggering. It means that while most of the initial invention might be discovered in the west with a team that is headed maybe by a Jew, but staff largely with Chinese scientists. The implementation/engineering/mass production, will certainly be done by the Chinese at that point.

If culture can influence nature, with the aid of genetic engineering, this may no longer be an issue for the Chinese. Anyone who has seen China for the last few decades will tell you that the cultural transformation is happening at lightning speed and continuing apace. The Chinese, for the first time in their history, have their eyes wide open to the West and is eager to learn everything the west had to offer. The "Communist" government is also very flexible and transforming itself in a very rapid pace.

It seems very likely that China will be a great power, perhaps the superpower in a century, maybe even a few decades. There is nothing the west can do to stop it, just like there is nothing that the old Europe can do to stop the rise of the U.S.(Some may point to WW I and II which gave rise to the U.S., I content that this only speed up the rise and does not change the trajectory).

Instead of trying to make you guys feel better by putting us down in one way or another, or pointing out that we are somehow foreign and hold different values, it might be more productive to recognize that the values held by the Chinese are not that different from the West. They are human values. The many faults that you can point to of China are not that uncommon from the initial phase of industrialization, as Charles Dickens might attest. Korea, Japan, even Taiwan, with similar values have quickly become part of the west. With China, the power asymmetry may, for the first time, run the other direction. But the West may have more influence on China than you realize, just as the Greeks have a big influence with the Romans.

As the rise of the Chinese come about, the east and the west need not be enemies, unless we deliberately set out to make it so, as some of the bloggers here are doing.

It is in the interest of the west to find common ground with China and to influence her values. But first, before you can have any impact at influencing them, you must understand their points of view.

Hang around a bunch of Chinese and you will quickly notice how they are much more intelligent than whites and far more civil. The civility angle is one that I find to be of great interest. I recently went to a Chinese wedding and everyone was so well-behaved and well-presented it was amazing. I contrast this with my mixed household upbringing. The Lutheran events were often attended by well-behaved people, but the degree of dress was often disheveled by comparison to the Chinese. The Jewish events were often just motley and would leave one wondering how Jews could be so freaking successful with their interesting take on life. The Chinese will be well served by their civility. Yan Shen, whatever his beef, is probably onto something. Of course, the solution is simple: one country for people who feel Chinese are best and one country for those of us who just want to be left alone and enjoy nature, sex, adventure, productive work and our families.

As for the article Yan Shen links, regarding white flight, I think it's pretty obvious why white people don't want to be around the sons and daughters of recent immigrant Asians. Asian students are so civil and conscientious that a mediocre Chinese can easily outperform a very intelligent gentile who is captivated by other aspects of wealthy Western life (namely sex and fun). Imagine living in coastal California and choosing to spend your day inside a lab when the great outdoors and flowing hair of coeds fills the crisp ocean air. Why anyone with a soul would choose to slave away on his studies when life itself is awaiting is beyond me. There are a million ways to make money but not one compares to the exhilaration of a libidinous youth. Certainly few men with testicles measuring >18 on the orchidometer can muster the discipline to sit for hours on end learning b.s. when nature tells them to find a suitable repository for their high horsepower testicles. I, for one, was so desirous of female companionship that I often thought I was going to pass out during class from the intense desire to "do it." Who cares about acing math, when that captivating brunette with the supple breasts is but feet from you and the beckoning nape of a blonde beauty in front of you provides a vision greater than any Rembrandt. It is only a matter of time before more and more Asians realize the joke that is life, and start to learn that Michelle Pfeiffer can bring you to joy like no piano ever could. Of course, that is not to say that hard work and dedication and vision are not important, they are, but not at the expense of your humanity.

Hang around a bunch of Chinese and you will quickly notice how they are much more intelligent than whites and far more civil. The civility angle is one that I find to be of great interest. I recently went to a Chinese wedding and everyone was so well-behaved and well-presented it was amazing. I contrast this with my mixed household upbringing. The Lutheran events were often attended by well-behaved people, but the degree of dress was often disheveled by comparison to the Chinese. The Jewish events were often just motley and would leave one wondering how Jews could be so freaking successful with their interesting take on life. The Chinese will be well served by their civility. Yan Shen, whatever his beef, is probably onto something. Of course, the solution is simple: one country for people who feel Chinese are best and one country for those of us who just want to be left alone and enjoy nature, sex, adventure, productive work and our families.

As for the article Yan Shen links, regarding white flight, I think it's pretty obvious why white people don't want to be around the sons and daughters of recent immigrant Asians. Asian students are so civil and conscientious that a mediocre Chinese can easily outperform a very intelligent gentile who is captivated by other aspects of wealthy Western life (namely sex and fun). Imagine living in coastal California and choosing to spend your day inside a lab when the great outdoors and flowing hair of coeds fills the crisp ocean air. Why anyone with a soul would choose to slave away on his studies when life itself is awaiting is beyond me. There are a million ways to make money but not one compares to the exhilaration of a libidinous youth. Certainly few men with testicles measuring >18 on the orchidometer can muster the discipline to sit for hours on end learning b.s. when nature tells them to find a suitable repository for their high horsepower testicles. I, for one, was so desirous of female companionship that I often thought I was going to pass out during class from the intense desire to "do it." Who cares about acing math, when that captivating brunette with the supple breasts is but feet from you and the beckoning nape of a blonde beauty in front of you provides a vision greater than any Rembrandt. It is only a matter of time before more and more Asians realize the joke that is life, and start to learn that Michelle Pfeiffer can bring you to joy like no piano ever could. Of course, that is not to say that hard work and dedication and vision are not important, they are, but not at the expense of your humanity.

It might be worthwhile to point out, the Industrial Revolution was entirely a goyim achievement.

Much of the modern world, ditto.

It is easy, in today's pathological times, to underestimate the willpower and abilities of Europeans, wherever they may be.

We are being written off because we are currently experimenting with our next Big Project, the worlwide elimination of racial distinctions.

Needless to say, this project necessarily involves the loss of our own (and subsequently, if things go according to plan, everyone else's) racial and religious identity.

It is a bad project, and will fail.

When it does, watch out for the blowback. All it takes to rule the world is adequate weaponry and utter ruthlessness.

Now look at the track record in Europe, and elsewhere we have been.

It's just a matter of attitude.

This time of cringing guilt and servile apology will pass. It is an illness, and it's many contradictions, impossibilities and disadvantages are already obvious; the impending dark ages in Europe and the bankruptcy of the USA, to name just two.

Just give us a bit of time.

Time to eject our treasonous leadership, clean house and heal; we'll be back.

One problem with assessing Chinese accomplishments is that there has been so much blatant propaganda. The leading authority in the West on Chinese technology is Joseph Needham - and he was about as impartial as James Carville. He hated the United States and the West. He was probably a traitor. He loved Mao and Communism.

Nothing Needham wrote about China can be trusted and he wrote more than anyone else.

That being said I think that the idea that the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese aren't creative is probably bunk. The real difference between the East and the West is that in the East the innovations didn't stick. For example the Sung Clock was certainly the largest and most complicated mechanism of its type in the world. But it did not set off a wave daughter machines. It just endured and then finally crumbled.

Innovations in the West also didn't stick very well. That is until the Renaissance. The great Italian Renaissance figure Filippo Brunelleschi invented something that made all the difference - the concept of intellectual property rights. He is the first man to receive a patent. He didn't just passively accept it he demanded it - he required of the world that they recognize his accomplishments.

That's why in the East no one knows who conceived and built the Sung Clock while everyone has heard of the Gutenberg Bible. As I posted above the Chinese didn't invent printing but they did invent paper but like almost all Chinese inventions the inventor's name was not recorded.

If I'm right about this the Chinese can adopt our Western ways and prosper. Right now the Chinese are off on the wrong foot. They continue to ignore intellectual property rights but I think that will change.

It's like Germans made great rockets but Jews made the atomic bomb. Not to steal Oppenheimer's thunder, but the German scientists were close. Very close. And Oppenheimer didn't do it alone. They went to Russia and the U.S. after WWII and were responsible for launching us into space. However, perhaps they've died off. Now NASA doesn't want to do anything that might make Muslims feel dumb.Truth is stranger than fiction. In the future (I hope), no one will believe the current stupidity allowed and perpetrated by those whose ancestors created the modern world.There is a black journalist named Tony Brown who, back in the 80s, had a program where he intoned angrily about the "minds that created stuff like atomic bombs" or something like that. Of course my immediate thought was, yeah, and if a black had invented it, you'd be bragging. And those "minds that created the bombs" also created everything else, including the tv he's on.Maybe this occurred to him eventually. I don't remember him going on about that another time.

As Stalin once said, "quantity has a quality all its own". Imagine a Japan that is four time the size of the U.S., with tightly interwoven trade etc. with rest of Asia. This before they have a signifcant IQ advantage.

My second point is purely annodotal. I have met many Japanese and Korean friends. It seems contrasting their cultures to that of the Chinese, the Chinese are much less rigid and less hierarchical, in someways closer to the U.S. Their culture is still at the beginning phase of transformation as many now realize how far behind they are of the west. I think when it is all said and done, you will find a China much closure to the west in many aspects than many of the slogans floating about such as "dictatorship", "Communist".

And I spoke as someone who actually experienced Communist rule and come to hate what it represents.

One more thing about this conversation. Chinese? Indians? There are at least a BILLION of each of them. When you think about the small number of Europeans (not to mention Ashkenazi Jews) who created the modern world, it's astonishingly clear that Europeans have something quite special. Sqeezing a moderate amount of original discovery out of a billion people--distilled from a few thousand at most--is less spectacular than the fact that European produced more from a pool some 90% smaller in density.Much more economical....

My second point is purely annodotal. I have met many Japanese and Korean friends. It seems contrasting their cultures to that of the Chinese, the Chinese are much less rigid and less hierarchical, in someways closer to the U.S. Their culture is still at the beginning phase of transformation as many now realize how far behind they are of the west. I think when it is all said and done, you will find a China much closure to the west in many aspects than many of the slogans floating about such as "dictatorship", "Communist".

I'd agree that China and America have a lot in common, but bigotry characterizes Chinese elites even more than American. Lots of Chinese, like Mr. Yan, have a sense of superiority combined with absolutely no sense of responsibility to their "inferiors."

Morally, Chinese elites are amongst the most backward of all, and this has been the case for a very long time, as evidenced by the atrocious treatment of their own less fortunate countrymen.

Do we really want such venal, self-absorbed people in positions of prominence in the US? I don't think so. This execrable trait may be the most fatal flaw of Chinese culture, leading more fortunate and better educated Chinese to justify any horror inflicted on anyone besides themselves.

It is truly a disgusting characteristic -- one that I and plenty of other Americans would fight with force of arms if it made some move for supremacy here.

It's like Germans made great rockets but Jews made the atomic bomb. Not to steal Oppenheimer's thunder, but the German scientists were close. Very close. And Oppenheimer didn't do it alone."

No, they weren't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haigerloch

By war's end, they had just constructed a reactor (which they never operated) for research purposes. They were hung up on using heavy-water as a moderator, whereas by that time, the Manhattan project had a graphite moderated reactor churning out several kg of plutonium a month. And the germans had no capacity for enriching uranium on an industrial scale, as the US did. They were far from even knowing how to build a bomb, let alone building and testing one.

My second point is purely annodotal. I have met many Japanese and Korean friends. It seems contrasting their cultures to that of the Chinese, the Chinese are much less rigid and less hierarchical, in someways closer to the U.S."

I agree. The national character of the japanese serves as no guide to that of the chinese. I believe they are, as you point out, less rigid, perhaps more inventive, less bound by concensus. They will also brag about themselves, in ways that a japanese would never do. I have also noticed (at least so it seems to me) that they have a more sophisticated, frankly more western-like, sense of humor.

I'd agree that China and America have a lot in common, but bigotry characterizes Chinese elites even more than American. Lots of Chinese, like Mr. Yan, have a sense of superiority combined with absolutely no sense of responsibility to their "inferiors."

Morally, Chinese elites are amongst the most backward of all, and this has been the case for a very long time, as evidenced by the atrocious treatment of their own less fortunate countrymen.

For a race that has perpetrated the virtual genocide of the Native Americans in North America and engaged in the African slave trade for countless centuries, Westerners sure have no shame bragging about their "moral superiority".

" Bill said... Morally, Chinese elites are amongst the most backward of all, and this has been the case for a very long time, as evidenced by the atrocious treatment of their own less fortunate countrymen."

All true. I will be the first to say that Chinese suffered more from the hands of their rulers than from outsiders. This arrogance came from ignorance of the outside and a sense of inferiority from a China that had been down for many centuries. As I said before, now is the first time when the people of China had their eyes wide open to the west. Their leadership today understand how far behind they are of the West and are just trying to catch up. They might sacrafice the rights of a few for the greater good of the society, but I would not characterize them as bigots as I don't get the sense they look down on the west, even as the financial crisis unfolded.

Yup because clearly there wasn't Jerry Yang, former CEO and co-founder of Yahoo.Or Jen-Hsun Huang, president, CEO, and co-founder of Nvidia.Or Steven Chen, one of the 3 co-founders of YouTube.Or Qian Xuesen, one of the co-founders of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at Caltech.

The title of the Jensen book fervently translated by the thenVP of the Chinese Psychological Society and by the Psychology Department at Beijing Normal University circa 1984-86 wasSTRAIGHT TALK ABOUT MENTAL T E S T S (NOT ABILITIES). It was "semi-officially" described , if in personal correspondence, as "exactly what we need." H. J. Eysenck was then prompted to send, by his personal donation, copies of his major works in sets of six--for relay to six translation stations. Thus, the major works of Eysenck were translated and fervently endorsed, if "semi-officially". Jensen and Eysenck by the fateful end of the decade had central influence upon Chinese psychology via Beijing Normal University. In addition, the Raven Progressive Matrices had been standardized in China and the manual sections sometimes translated in 24 hours by teams of translators working at BNU. In addition the British Ability Scales given keen attention as were major group tests, such as the Lorge_Thornkike (US) and Alice Heim's AH series (UK). It is a story within a story as to how the shipment of these testing materials and books was facilitated into China, but that will be provided Mr. Sailer and Chris Brand conjointly in personal email correspondence and is not provided for publication or dissemination. The bottom line is that at that time ( since? ) China seemed much more "g" friendly--reality friendly-- than either the USA or the UK. An American academic mindful of some of these events is Edward M. Miller, formerly of the U. of New Orleans.

"Morality" used in the context of the article really means Western cultural morality. There is nothing about the research cited in the article that violates Chinese standards of morality. The Chinese have a civilization and culture that is just as rich and sophisticated as the Western culture. Is it not possible that they have evolved their own concepts of morality and that, therefor, western concepts of morality does not apply to them?

Personally, I see nothing objectionable about the scientific research cited in the article. In fact, I wish we would do more of it here in the U.S.

Yan Shen has a point and I'm surprised anyone reading these comment would agrue otherwise.

I'm not going to bore you with a long list of corrections of some laughable claims here (China is ethnically homogenous and the people lack creativity? C'mon!) It really is in the best interest of the West to understand the realities of acsendant China better.

I mourn for the loss of both a sense of shared community and appreciation of Western culture as much as anyone. But, really it is in your best interest to know the facts and make sure your children do, too.

Yan Sang forgets about that little Cultural Revolution thing. How many millions snuffed out? Versus how many slaves in North America? I roll my eyes with a chuckle. As for Native Americans, they genocided my Solutrean people; that cycle of violence is no place for finger-pointing and name-calling.

Is it not possible that they have evolved their own concepts of morality and that, therefor, western concepts of morality does not apply to them?

No. Morality doesn't work that way. You can make up your own moral code if you like and insist it is true (we all have divergent moral codes of course), and noone can "prove" you wrong, but you're still an actor in another person's moral system and they will judge you as such.

I wouldn't worry about claims of Chinese moral superiority versus the West. Ask the Taiwanese Aborigines, or the steppe people to whom the Chinese state ruthlessly brought death by Western armaments in the 19th century (as soon as it was able to place the hammer down on a people in much of an analogous raiding situation as American Indians were to the US). Or the hill tribes. There's no certainly no Western expansionist moral pathology the West, or even America, should feel particularly guilty for.

Loading Prompt Global Strike in VLS Cells Will Transform U.S. Naval Power

Read more: http://defensetech.org/#ixzz0tVvMGoOE Defense.org

Read more: http://defensetech.org/#ixzz0tVvDfa2d Defense.org

Meet ArcLight–the weapon that will change the way the world thinks about U.S. surface combatants:

“The ArcLight program will design, build, and flight test a long range (> 2,000 nm) ( "nm" = nautical miles --DD ) vehicle that carries a 100–200 lb payload(s). ArcLight is based on an SM-3 Block II booster stack, a hypersonic glider and is capable of being launched from a Mark 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) tube. The development of the ArcLight system will enable high speed, long range weapons capable of engaging time critical targets and can be launched from Naval surface and sub-surface assets, and Naval/Air Force air assets.”

For a race that has perpetrated the virtual genocide of the Native Americans in North America and engaged in the African slave trade for countless centuries, Westerners sure have no shame bragging about their "moral superiority".

"Countless centuries"? There were four. Count 'em.

You guys still get the door prize for "most destructive civil war in history" though:

>>I mourn for the loss of both a sense of shared community and appreciation of Western culture as much as anyone. But, really it is in your best interest to know the facts and make sure your children do, too.<<

I agree with your assertions. People should understand the realities of the world and prepare to craft an appropriate place for their progeny. Unfortunately, a focus on a potential lack of "knife edge" Chinese creativity is to miss the greater truth regarding that country's ascendancy and our country's decline.

The first African slave was accidentally brought in 1619 to the English colonies that would expand to become America. Until about 1640, these African slaves were treated as indentured servants, the same as about 50% of white immigrants to the colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries.

In 1662, due to labor shortages, Virginia passed a state law that led the colonies in changing the status of black slaves from whites, making slavery hereditary for blacks only. This seems to be the earliest major law in any colony that led to the development of what we consider a distinctive black slavery experience in America.

Each colony had a different history with slavery. Georgia outlawed slavery 1735-1750. All colonies except GA banned or limited slavery by 1786 (GA did so by 1798), although some were later repealed. The US banned the slave trade in 1808 and worked with the British navy to police the African coasts for violators. Slavery was completely eradicated by 1865, except in Indian territories where some blacks were held in slavery until the late 1870s by tribes like the Cherokees.

I'm no copyright Nazi but it's just wrong to put the entire story on your blog. Put up a sample, then send folks to the WP for the rest, as you do for stuff you write for other sites. They spent the money to write the story. They deserve hits.

Honorable Host, your readers are not nearly as intelligent as you. It's a shame that the inferior quality of their comments mars our appreciation of your genius. I'm puzzled as to why you let them continue. Would it not be wiser to cut off comments entirely, so that we could more easily isolate and diminish you, er, enjoy your musings without distraction?

He's probably a Soros plant.

Comments composed entirely by clever clogs banging their top 1 percentile IQs on the virtual table would be the fastest way to kill whatever mainstream interest exists in this blog. If Steve wanted a private club for nerds, he wouldn't have a public website. Free speech involves allowing even opinions one doesn't consider worthy. (Not that the Chinese need any lectures on free speech.)

I was (partly) being facetious - simpley counting the four centuries from the english settlement of America till now (some members of the NAACP act as if we still had slavery). It was only to point out the ridiculousness of Yang Shen's claims that slavery lasted for "countless centuries".

But the rather surprisingly paltry creative output of Asians, given their obvious intelligence, in almost all situations, is hard to comprehend.

Hahaha.

Lets see: Singapore, almost entirely populated by lower/middle class South Chinese from the periphery.

So resource-poor it needs to buy WATER from a hostile nation.

25% non-Chinese.

1) They have among the highest net worths in the world2) They fight Hong Kong for the number one spot in HWNI concentration (Google it)3) They have among the highest GDPs per capita in the world4) They are stuck in a relatively poor region

Lets throw 3 million whites onto some completely resource-poor fingernail somewhere in the middle of Africa and see if they can manage 8% growth once GDP/cap is over 50,000 and 10% of the population is worth a million USD or more.

Nobels and inventions are resource intensive, and wealth in white societies is simply more concentrated in the hands of the rich.

In East Asia it is far more evenly distributed.

Really, it's cute when white nationalists (or are they called HBDers now?) make their little "wealth and IQ" charts and bounce their inane theories on why East Asians are "poor". Using GDP as a measure of poverty.

Apparently white verbal IQ is so high that the difference between GDP and wealth eludes 100% of white nationalists, and their ability to derive IQs from SATs is somewhat hampered by poor understanding of statistics, like over/under-representation and the fact that 10-15% of East Asian males slam into the 800 math score.

As far as Chinese humor goes, it's pretty subtle and reliant on context and knowledge, unsurprisingly some people who are the joke itself won't understand this - or will refuse to do so, flat-out.

Ignoring of course the Romans and Greeks, and say more obscure peoples like the Hyksos (or at least some of them) and Gutians who have been at it for centuries. The only thing mitigating the point is that whites enslaved themselves for thousands of years, and merely replaced it with debt-slavery within the last half-century.

Whereas in China not even 1% of the population was enslaved at the slave population's peak, and the vast majority of them were not Chinese. Not at the time, at least.

I'm sure you will lecture me about "wealth gap" in China, but then I will point out that income isn't wealth, but that much would strain you I think.

"You guys still get the door prize for "most destructive civil war in history" though:"

Most of the people died from starvation and breakdown of civil order, these are all people who wouldn't have existed if the Dynasty had simply ground their bones for profit as was done in Europe.

Some other guy saidGuttenberg's genius was to invent moveable, metal type - as fitted to an alphabet (which China never had).

Yes, China stuck with a logographic script because in reality, it has hundreds of different groups of people speaking thousands of different dialects, most of which are mutually unintelligible. Meanwhile, Europeans never independently invented any kind of writing system at all.

Since the first anatomically modern Cro-Magnons were found dated to what, 40,000 BC? - they had no writing whatsoever for over 30,000 years.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.